Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 159

On September 17 2013 00:48 oneofthem wrote:
I think the U.S. response is beyond pale of humanitarian concern, but the unfortunate situation is that syria is too big to be a humanitarian operation. there are islamist rebels in the area, and they are higher priority than saving the people of syria.

i've said previously in the thread that even without this war, assad wasn't a good guy by any means. but to expect the U.S. to take out a guy for merely being bad is being unrealistic. i mean, if we hold the U.S. to this standard, then there's just not enough outrage to go around.

i think you'd have a good chance to get asylum in the U.S. if you are say, a doctor from syria escaping assad, and there are U.S. based NGOs who are extremely concerned about the plight of the syrian people. The U.S. is also plenty angry at what goes on in syria, but it's a nasty situation all around, so official response is limited and you are left with these NGO type things.

BREAKING Turkey says it has downed Syrian helicopter: deputy PM

On September 17 2013 01:12 Derez wrote:

Even if we assume that the US goal is containing/limiting the islamists, how is US policy helping accomplish this? You're supplying weapons to the FSA, who are loosely aligned with the islamists for now out of necessity. Assad's main concern at this point aren't the islamists either, its the FSA rebels in the damascus suburbs, against who the chemical weapons were used. US policy is self-defeating in so many ways: the FSA fights Assad, Assad fights the FSA, the islamists take whatever they can get their hands on and kill anyone that does not agree with them. The US is weakening both sides that could possibly stand up to the jihadi's by inaction.

And yes, there's lots of 'bad' guys, but expecting the world (including the US) to act against the very worst of them is not unrealistic, the US and other nations have done so plenty of times in the past. There's a point where a dictator goes from being just a 'bad' dictator to being a war criminal and ethnic cleanser, because that's the only way Assad will ever legitimately rule Syria again.

Also,



from AFP

One thing to understand about these munitions is they aren't just linked to the August 21st attack. Since January 2013 there's been a number of images of these munitions posted online, not always linked to alleged chemical attacks (which would be reasonable as we've established there's two types of munitions), but always showing the same design, and in all of these examples they are claimed to be munitions used by the Syrian military against the Syrian opposition. Here's a list of videos by date and location [See links in the source: ]

January 4th Daraya - Unknown type
June 11th Adra
August 2nd Khalidiya, Homs - UMLACA-HE
August 5th Yabroud - Unknown type
August 5th Adra - UMLACA-UK
August 5th Adra - UMLACA-UK
August 5th Adra - UMLACA-UK
August 21st Eastern Ghouta - Rocket 197 - UMLACA-UK
August 21st Eastern Ghouta - Rocket 197 - UMLACA-UK
August 21st Eastern Ghouta - Rocket 197 - UMLACA-UK
August 21st Eastern Ghouta - UMLACA-UK
August 21st Zamalka - UMLACA-UK

In all but the January 4th Daraya and August 2nd Homs video they are described as chemical munitions. In the case of the 3 videos from Adra on August 5th, they are linked directly to an attack that took place on the same day, with videos of the victims of the attack showing the same kinds of symptoms. I spoke to a doctor in Damascus who claims to have treated victims from both the August 21st attack and August 5th attack, and he claimed the symptoms where the same in both attacks.

So on the government side we've got everything I've posted above, but what of evidence that the Syrian opposition has these munitions? As far as I'm aware, none exists. I've been tracking the arms and munitions used by both sides in the conflict for 18 months, and I've never seen this being used by the opposition. If they did have these, and were just hiding them from view, I'd ask why over the past few months they've also developed the Hell Cannon, a type of DIY mortar, and the Sayidna Omar Gun, a larger version of the Hell Cannon, when they already have access to an obviously superior type of munition?

On September 16 2013 23:44 Derez wrote:
A threat of force with absolutely no meaning because at this point its pretty much unimaginable that Obama would strike without UNSC mandate as part of the resolution, which he'll never get from the Russians, or would strike unilaterally/coalition of the willing without approval from congress, which he won't get either.

All you're left with is strong condemnation and he's been shifty in how strong his condemnation actually is, going from 'this warrants a strike' to 'maybe we can talk it over'. There are no political constraints except for the ones he and his administration created for themselves here. He could have pretty much done whatever he wanted if he chose a coherent line, but instead changed his mind several times and gave up trying to even make a decision in the end. Ask congressmen if they want another war and of course they're going to say no. What you're left with is pre-1995 Clinton, a president without vision for the world and uncomfortable with the use of force in general.

And its going to cost the US a great deal of influence and credibility internationally. Just the precedent that Obama set by leaving the choice to congress makes him look weak and makes the presidency (and the US) look weak.

It was also possible to find the precise location of one of the munitions fired, and deduce it was fired from the north, the location of 155th brigade missile base, and related sites (detailed here).

This is the evidence that the Syrian government was capable of the attack, and had a history of using the munitions linked to the attack. As for evidence of Syrian opposition responsibility, that appears rather thin on the ground. You have claims the attacks were faked, the victims being Alawite hostages from Latakia, that were somehow driven through hundreds of miles of contested and government controlled territory to Damascus. There's claims that this was some sort of accident involving Saudi supplied chemical weapons, which fails to explain how one incident could effect two separate areas. Other claims centre around the opposition having sarin, based off reports in Turkey in May, where it was reported Jabhat al-Nusra members were arrested with sarin. The "sarin" was later reported to be anti-freeze, and only this week some of the members are being prosecuted for trying to make sarin, having only a shopping list of ingredients, rather than actual sarin. It seems to me, that compared to the evidence of government responsibility for the attacks, the evidence of opposition responsibility seems very poor.

On September 17 2013 01:23 oneofthem wrote:
the U.S. is sufferign from war exhaustion. they do all their assisting of the FSA via NGOs. i do agree that assad should be taken out earlier, but assad is a hard nut to crack so merely assisting secular rebels doesn't seem to be enough. the harder responses are pretty much off the table because of internal war exhaustion, and externally fierce opposition of the group of dictators.

if we are talking about worse dictators, there's always north korea

On September 17 2013 01:31 a176 wrote:


quite frankly i think thats all bullshit (not addressing you personally). the only nation to whom credibility is at stake, and always has been the case, is russia. russia was the one blocking force against syria for purely political and possibly economic reasons. they used the fact there was little public knowledge on what actually occured to there to their benefit since the attack. now that there is an official UN report with facts, there is nothing russia can use or say to go against the rest of the world.

any lack of action by the UN/NATO/etc against syria, to allow assad "go unpunished" for killing over a thousand citizens with sarin, is the real crime.

On September 17 2013 02:09 oneofthem wrote:
yea, but as you've said the islamists are mixed within the various factions opposing assad. the u.s. would like to not give stuff to al qaeda, but that does not mean they don't want to help the moderate rebels.

On September 17 2013 03:26 Derez wrote:
I guess what you're hinting at is that even organizations expressing the political opinion of 'moderate' muslims, such as the muslim brotherhood in egypt, can be considered as islamist. If that's your starting position, then yes, all of them are islamist. I think its pretty easy to distinguish between those that want to overthrow assad, started initially as a public movement pushing for democratic rights, and those that fight to establish the caliphate.

1. Chemical weapons were delivered with munitions not used by rebels.
2. The sarin was fired from a regime-controlled area.
3. Chemical analysis suggests sarin likely came from controlled supply.
4. Cyrillic characters on the sides of the shells
5. The UN Secretary General's comments on the report

But based on our preliminary review, I will note one particular observation. We have associated one type of munition cited in the UN report – 122mm rockets – with previous regime attacks. We have reviewed thousands of open source videos related to the current conflict in Syria and have not observed the opposition manufacturing or using this style of rocket.

In addition, and I just want to underscore something that Ambassador Lyall Grant shared, Mr. Sellstrom noted in response to a question from Russia that the quality of the sarin was higher than that of the sarin used in Saddam Hussein’s program. Again, higher than the quality of that used in Saddam Hussein’s program. Mr. Sellstrom also stated that the weapons obtained on the site, on the scene of this monstrous crime, were professionally made. He said that they bore none of the characteristics of improvised weapons.

We understand some countries did not accept on faith that the samples of blood and hair that the United States received from people affected by the August 21 attack contained sarin. But now Dr. Sellstrom’s samples show the same thing.

And it’s very important to note that the regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition possesses sarin.

Let me also remind you of what we know coming into today's briefing. In the days before the attack, Assad’s chemical weapons experts prepared for an attack. They distributed gas masks to regime troops. They fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 12 neighborhoods that the regime had been trying to clear of opposition forces. And here again I want to underscore, it defies logic to think that the opposition would have infiltrated the regime-controlled area to fire on opposition-controlled areas. And again, it also is worth underscoring that this is the largest chemical weapons attack in 25 years. And that is something that the Secretary General stressed. The largest attack since Halabja.

***

Reporter: One, is it true that President Bashir has requested a visa to come here for the GA? And also, there was an early provision in one of the draft resolutions on Syria which called for the use, Chapter 7. . .appropriate measures under Chapter 7 (inaudible) Article 42, use of force in the event of another chemical weapons attack. Is the U.S. still pushing for language like that in the resolution, or that that been taken out?

Ambassador Power: Let me address the first question first, we have seen those reports that President Bashir intends [inaudible interruption] – Bashir, thank you. I’d be happy to trade places here. But, we have seen the reports that President Bashir intends to travel to New York. President Bashir, as you know, stands accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. Such a trip would be deplorable, cynical and hugely inappropriate. We would suggest that given that he is under those chargers, and that the ICC has indicted him, again, on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity charges that it would be more appropriate for him to present himself to the ICC and travel to The Hague.

On September 17 2013 06:40 hypercube wrote:
This is weird. It seems like the US and its allies could have gathered enough support for a military strike if they only had the patience to wait for the UN report. Not sure if the report changes anything after Assad agreed to give up chemical weapons.